New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-05
BANK TAXATION
NOR ExEMpT FROM ASSESSMENT.
WHERE THEIR BUSINESS DrFFERs FROM THAT OF
sAYINGs BANKS.

WHERE THEIR BUSINESS DIFFERS FROM THAT OF
| TRUST COMPANIES AND SAVINGS BANKS.
WASHINGTON April A decision was rendered by the
United Supreme Court to-day in the important bank
tar case entitled Mercantile National Bank OF the City II
against the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty OF
the City NcwYork and George W. Mclean Receiver OF
Taxes This is Of thirty five suits brought by the
National OF the City of NewYork against the munich
pal that restrain the collection of taxes
upon OF OF said banks The qes
raised by whether not the system OF Jaws
enforced in the State OF New.York is In opposition
to section 6.2lo OF the Revised Statutes Of the
United States. which requires that the taxation OF
shares National Banks shall not be at greater rate than
assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands OF nd
vidua citizens said statoa" This court answers that
question the negative and ams the decree OF the court
below in This important decision to
the NewYork to the amount OF more than
s. 900 involved and National bank stock affected by
II amounts par value to more than ss3 100000.
similar decision rendered the OF the National
Newark Banking Company against the Mayor and Common
Council OF the City OF Newark, ~ j.
On behalf OF the appellee it contendedfrs that the
shares stock companies incorporated by the
of NewYork moneyed stock interpretations derv
ing profit from their capital otherwise, ln'
GLIDING companies life companies and saw
ngs banks moneyed capital the hands OF the nd
ydual within the meaning OF the act OF Congress-
second of them then that the corporations
themselves taxed unfer the laws OF NewYork In such
the shares OF stock therein
are subjected equal to that which assessed
upon OF National banks and thiri that there are
exceptions they mmateria in amount and based upon
which exclude them from the operation Of the
rule intended by the Congress-
The supreme Court long opinion by Justice Matthews
detail the previous decisions OF the court upon this
subject OF review the comes TO the
that moneyed capital In the hands OF individual
citizens necessarily embrace shares OF stock held
In all corpor ans whose capital is employed accord
their respective corporate powers and privileges IN
business carried on for the pecnafy profit OF shareoder
their business be such moneyed capital The true
test distinction IL Ia he found in the nature Of the bu&
in which the corporation is engaged
sist IN The ISSUE OF notes PAYABLE on demand niene
ens,e as money ~ ecsy'n nsr %spss OF on
collateral security buying and selling nlls Oh ehcnangeji
by G,ucrnmeni state and National and municipal and
capital invested In National banks employed AMI 1t is the
OF ma. employ wh9 G and
carving these opera ions competition with the
vuals thus employed what inenled to be tecrbe by
panes are not banks in the comn~rca sense Of wor
aud do not perform Tho functions OF banks in CARRYING on
In the saving. banks that neither
the bank itself no TIE ind vna deposition Is Ia on recount
of the dcposi According 10 the agreed statement Of acts IN
ts case o noslts ID w.. s ~
MED that these deposit. constitute oneyed capital IN me
hands OF individuals within the terms Of ANY definition when
given that pias but eualy clear To the court
.ne Ss sn are as not to vi h r are exS@Sed ron tax
Anon STOCK IN National banks mnsi thereby also be-
exempted from taxation 80 suppose for moment
that savings banks into any possible competition with
With regard to the ton Of municipal bonds from tax
repsse", on,Se ',P a2 ana nro at tcrc,re
TAXATION at National bank s'ar
The same considerations apply 10 what Is caeh m eirm
ton irom taxation OF shares OF stock OF cooatons cteat"i
oy Other dn aI 10 az 81 o 90 VINO"
decision rendere IN the OF James Fargo presi
state Of Michigan In error o. the supreme Court .! Neh
s sp Of an AZ Of tho u g,n Lesstare passed June s.
1883 entitled An act 10 provide for tho taxation OF per
sons cop1rinersp, as'oitions roanng Companies ana
fast iTos INES eng.ssd me sqnssi not SI Iun1"s lars
yey The po,[ o. any rad eqm gs PAYNE
Us law e'eayered TO cseta tax from an s1nres' com
p,ny running ,'s intP ana ond 1 a, 'aro ~, Min
The jurisdiction ~ ne state TVS curt Lohs lat W. .ot
stat lie Lower to ~ Ike wich is wiihhed irc STATES
ne supreme court ef Michigan is reversed
conformity win The opinion this
c.ou Iend I'D ~ The mnniclp,l bond case OF rho
in,on in 'rr TO t. Cni'c' STAT. fr tho
Nor,hcrn District Of Illinois mi. is snit certain
lion Of ne icaso an,ilc ana Nin e"n.s in,"a ,hs
town Notwithstanding e fct tal the dee dan IN error
thereto Tho udgncn reversed with directions to enter
l"sm Sne ,I s "n, as do n vero a, follows.
SO los Alb-rt Grant appellant sgt ne lhsnlx Mn,na,
he pl:,re, e coni, + affirmed With coats tho
Phoenix Muiuh Iic insur me- ,ompaly Appeal ron te
ss ar2 wth c AMI The appeal from order
APr i9-S d,%is,ei 96 ths g1n1 % m ,rn no., Tho
Charter oah National Bank ETC. In error 10 the Circuit ont
with costs and fcnais with directions
10 ~ aside The verdict and to award new triai.
No ijjNose- karrnbnrgcr and others pl1ntr ~ error
agt the ty OF Aberdeen, Mist In error Ia the District
United states for The Northern District OF Mis-
ss.ippt Judgment affirmed with costs
No. loo Ne-ta lady appellant agt Z Huntnson ana
District OF Nest Decree reversed with costs
renamed with directions send IL back To tho
state Court suit which had bocn Improperly removed ana
- which the District court had no JURISDICTION.
No 80 h Ester ami others appellant. agt III tunter
and others. Motion to dSnis, d' MED.
No s17-Ihe burlington Cedar Iapiis and northern Hal'
road COMPANY plaintiff In agt Charles Dunn etc
Motion ~ under SD granted.
The other business transacted to-day was as follows:
l22l-G II Bush. claimant. plaintiff agt tho
United States In iOthc Circuit Court o! tho United
states for The District Of Massachusetts,. Dismissed
Orginal-The state Wis DOnsin pantin agi. the
Submitted by samuel Shela5argcr.
g7y-1hc Insurance Company or Ncwlo
plaintiff agt Thomas Johnson. In error u the
Circuit ntcd states Tor the Eastern District u
LOUISIANA Dismissed Clerks costs u De paid Dy the panun
No i0G-wilam d Andrews AMI others appellants agt.
30 SiO-Wiilam Andrews and others appellants. agt
Royal Cone Motion 10 pass to No 1876 and hear with No
No l3i7-The Stock Yards Company, appellants
agt Wilson. Motion Tor super, cieas submitted
No lS2-The United states planitin IN error agI l.
Phillips and others Argued.
No Isi e II Goollet administrator plaintiff error
agt Louisville aud Nashville RAILROAD Company Argued
aud submitted on printed arguments -
No lSj John Poagc. appellant agt. Theodore j NC
Gowan Appeal the Circuit Court OF the United states
tho Southern District Of Ohio Dismissed with costs pur
NO is6 Lizzie futile plaintiff
agt Detroit Grand Haven and Milwaukee abroad Com
10 ls7eCharles Boynton. plaintiff in error ag Plow
den II Ball Argument begun
Adjourned until tomorrow at IL o'clock